Quality of out of focus image for 50mm lenses

[glenerrolrd]

i agree the noct nikkor bokeh is pretty much unparalleled. however, the biggest turnoff when using that lens is that most dslr viewfinders really aren't too good for manual focusing. i use the d700, and even though d700 viewfinder is relatively better than most other dslrs, i still end up concentrating on getting precise focus more than composing and exposing the photo.

Agree 100% . But you should note that you don t have to shoot at 1.2 to get the great bokeh and in some cases (like the Noctilux ) it can be overdone. The diglloyd test I believe shows the bokeh at each F stop and compares the noct nikkor to the canon 1.2L .

Just like a Noctilux on the M .....the bokeh is still great at f2 and now you have a little DOF.

we need the Nikon version of the canon 50 1.2L with AF.

 

[glenerrolrd]

The 50/1.4D is... not good in defocus rendering.

IMO the Sigma pretty much blows anything away except maybe the Canon 85/1.2L when it comes to rear defocus rendering. I know the Leica guys disagree with me but they're wrong.

The Sigma is also an extremely sharp lens. Just don't expect your AF to focus properly at 1.4 - you have to be more precise than that to nail the extremely shallow DOF (shallower than other 1.4 lenses due to the way the out of focus softness approaches the focus plane in this lens).

What I really like about the Sigma is its duality - creamy smooth almost soft wide open, razor sharp at f/2.

Sample: Sigma 50/1.4 @1.4, Nikon D700.

Lars

Surely you aren t serious. First this isn t particularly good bokeh. Look at the framed picture in the background on how it renders the edges . In good bokeh you don t see high contrast edges in the out of focus areas.

Good bokeh has a creamy look ..this is just showing the selective DOF possible.

Look up one of the threads on the Nikon Cafe and search for the 58mm 1.2 ...thats an example of good bokeh.

Or you could ask one of the Leica guys Noctilux 1.0 images .

Roger

 

[Lars]

Lars

Surely you aren t serious. First this isn t particularly good bokeh. Look at the framed picture in the background on how it renders the edges . In good bokeh you don t see high contrast edges in the out of focus areas.

Good bokeh has a creamy look ..this is just showing the selective DOF possible.

Look up one of the threads on the Nikon Cafe and search for the 58mm 1.2 ...thats an example of good bokeh.

Or you could ask one of the Leica guys Noctilux 1.0 images .

Roger

Roger,

Although this is partially a subjective issue, I'm afraid that you are to some extent incorrect here.

What happens when you have a perfect neutral bokeh is that a specular highlight in form of a point is rendered as a uniformly lit disc. This means that such a disc will have a sharp edge. A specular highlight in form of a line then will form a defocus highligh with a sharp line. This is what you see in this image.

Many lenses designed primarily for sharpness like the 50/1.4D create rear defocus with a brighter edge. This is what creates the busy, "frizzed" look that to many is unpreferable. This usually goes away when stepped down a bit.

The Nikkor 50/1.2 AI is horrible in this respect. Highlights wide open are donuts.

The 58/1.2 exhibits tons of vignetting wide open, creating banana-shaped highlights towards the corners. I don't think that's excellent bokeh. It also creates hot edges in the rear defocus highlights. It's good but hardly a rock star.

The Sigma 50 creates round, uniformly lit rear defocus highlights with relatively little vignetting towards edges and corners due to the huge front diameter. It's not perfect but it's darn good.

I have to go to a conference but will post more analytical samples over the weekend.

 

[Steen]

The bokeh we see here has to do with that specific background, and it also has to do with the specific Subject Distance as well as the Background Distance.

If we want to compare the Sigma with other 50mm lenses we need to make a controlled setup with the same background and the same distances.

As I mentioned I once saw such a controlled comparison of the Sigma along with three other fast ~50mm lenses.
I no longer recall exactly which lenses (maybe something like a Contax Zeiss, a Rokkor, a Takumar ... or ... well, something like that, and shot on an EOS camera, probably a 5D).
Unfortunately the new Nikon AF-S 1.4/50 G was not one of them, at that time I would especially have been interested in that comparison.

The Sigma had by far the creamiest bokeh of the four.
The three others had very similar out of focus rendering with at least some contrast left in the out of focus edges, while the Sigma stood out with an extraordinary creamy bokeh.
My first thought was that this was nearly too blurred for my personal taste, no painterly 'drama' left in the background, nearly no nothing left at all but a soft mist.
Obviously a rather unusual optical formula compared to the other ones.

I have no doubt that Lars is dead serious

 

[fotografz]

Woody, when I shot Nikon I went through every F mount AF 50 that you could put on the camera and never solved the problem to my liking. The Siggy 50/1.4 wasn't bad, but it did strange things to the specular highlights at near range, and the AF was jinky ... I went through 3 different Siggy 50s before giving up.

The Nikon 50/1.4 AFS was a bit of a disappointment ... AF wasn't much faster than the previous 50/1.4 despite being AFS :wtf: ... and Nikon dissapointed by NOT giving it Nano Crystal Coating. :wtf::wtf:

BTW, if you don't like the Bokeh of your Nikon 50/1.4D, you'd despise the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 at those same near background ranges.

The Canon AF 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 spoils it for everyone else ... great OOF rendering and superb flair suppression in lower ambient with specular areas. Not only that, the front OOF areas are also nicer than most others. I used those lenses coupled with a STE-2 transmitter to provide AF assist in really low ambient which speeded up the AF considerably.

My suggestion would be to move up to the Nikon 85/1.4 or 100/2 DC while moving back a bit ... and leave it at that.

The only 50 mm I use these days is the Noctilux 50/0.95. I have a Sony 50/1.4 which isn't all bad, but I never use it.

(attached: Canon 85/1.2)

 

[glenerrolrd]

Lars Steen

I think we are having slightly different frames of reference. Which is fine. I have no doubt that among the available AF 50 s for the Nikon that the Sigma has the best bokeh . As Marc points out though its a weak group. The Nikon AF have quite edgy bokeh . The zeiss is worse yet . By default almost the Sigma wins this class. No argument here.


Ok lets compare the Sigma to the best in class which seem to be the 50/85L canon lenses and the Noctilux. The 80/1.4 summilux R which I converted for the Nikon is pretty decent as well. There are a number of Leica M lenses that have beautiful bokeh ..35/50 preasph ,75 lux. etc. Thats the class of "bokeh " kings I am referring to. The Sigma isn t competitive in this group. IMHO

So if I am looking at the 50 offerings for the Nikon ...Sigma looks pretty good but IMHO not compared to the group of "best in class". I think we have different frames of reference.

As to the 58mm asph ..I am researching this lens for my "no light available" kit . Diglloyd has an excellent comparison of the 58mm 1.2 Noct to the Canon 50 1.2L . Since I know the 50L , this test resonates with my experience. As you said its subjective but when I have a direct comparison shot side by side ..I can see the differences . I do not have a closed mind on any comparisons. I read every report I can find and look at as many examples as I can when considering a lens for a special purpose. I haven t seen any test or example that gave the Noct Nikkor anything less than best in class bokeh. I am surprised by your POV on this lens(I know it has other + and - )but never saw any bad bokeh.

 

[Corlan F.]

Interesting POV exchanged here.

Though like with pretty much every bokeh discussion, there's some strong personal preference and reference in play. Really, the only way to determine what's best is obviously to have a side by side, controlled conditions comparison for several shots (close, mid, long distance then the same with background distance, then the same with backgroung contrast types/spec Hl)... and even then -been there, done that- you'll get various assesments coming from a panel of photographers (or including art directors). Which is fine, but we're really deep into subjective territory.

One thing Roger, though: "The Nikon AF have quite edgy bokeh . The zeiss is worse yet". First, i've noticed that above there's an ongoing confusion entertained in the various posts between the AF/AFS 1.4D and 1.4G. Not the same animals. Then, the "Zeiss is worse"? Hum, perharps if you guys are sticking to the strict 1.4 comparison for extreme lowlight. But the ZF 50/2 is another story -IMO the best out there in F-mount, by relatively far.



Finally: the 58 delivers stunning results in capable hands, provided one knows and masters its -relatively speaking- flaws. Not exactly a studio workhorse, but one of the best tool for street. OTOH the 85 1.4 (called the "cream machine" by some recognized phtographers) performance is in turn very dependant on shooting conditions. This is a very well documented lens on the internet, it's easy to find less-than-stellar examples... even a majority. But it's still a superb portrait lens if it fits one's shooting style, and for one who made the effort to understand its best use. Like pretty much every lens.


Oh, and... now that the truly usable ISO in recent Nikon bodies goes through the roof, some of us can live with 2.8 max aperture in a majority of cases, then the Micro 60 2.8G is maybe the best out there. A totally underrated lens. And this goes for the 105VR, even better... if you can "move back a bit" (@Mark, above), of course


FWIW and since we're in subjective territory, here's my personal ranking in the F-mount 50to60mm category:

- ZF 50/2M ** Noktor 58/1.2 (street, lowlight B&W with an analog touch)
- Nikon Mikro 60/2.8G
- Tamron 17-50mm @ 50 (for street, and only when in Jorgen's hands )
- Nikon AFS 50/1.4G or Sigma 50/1.4 or ZF 50 1.4 (depending on one's shooting style and expectations -for studio portraits and product close-ups i'd keep the Nikon without hesitation)
- Nikon 50/1.2 AIS
- Nikon AFS 50/1.4D

Well, something like that. Again, a very subjective matter.

In the end, i could live with all of the above. Would just try and learn its ropes, and get the best out of it

 

[panda81]

Agree 100% . But you should note that you don t have to shoot at 1.2 to get the great bokeh and in some cases (like the Noctilux ) it can be overdone. The diglloyd test I believe shows the bokeh at each F stop and compares the noct nikkor to the canon 1.2L .

Just like a Noctilux on the M .....the bokeh is still great at f2 and now you have a little DOF.

we need the Nikon version of the canon 50 1.2L with AF.

agree with you 100% too. one thing to note though is that if you stop down the lens when there are light sources in the background, the light sources may not be completely rounded anymore (although they always will be if you shoot at f/1.2). just thought it's worth mentioning because sometimes people value having completely rounded light sources in the background.

here is one example at f/1.4




also, i have to admit, of course i love the novelty of being able to shoot at f/1.2, or else i would just use a f/1.4 or another lens instead

 

[panda81]

bokeh is undoubtedly a subjective matter. all i know is that i love my noct-nikkor. when i purchased the leica noctilux, i was going to sell my noct-nikkor to help fund it. but right now it just seems like my hands are unable to lose its grips on it.

here are some of my shots with the noct-nikkor. i like what i see in the bokeh, but it's just a matter of everyone's own tastes. you guys can decide for yourselves if you like the bokeh or not.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Interesting POV exchanged here.

Though like with pretty much every bokeh discussion, there's some strong personal preference and reference in play. Really, the only way to determine what's best is obviously to have a side by side, controlled conditions comparison for several shots (close, mid, long distance then the same with background distance, then the same with backgroung contrast types/spec Hl)... and even then -been there, done that- you'll get various assesments coming from a panel of photographers (or including art directors). Which is fine, but we're really deep into subjective territory.

One thing Roger, though: "The Nikon AF have quite edgy bokeh . The zeiss is worse yet". First, i've noticed that above there's an ongoing confusion entertained in the various posts between the AF/AFS 1.4D and 1.4G. Not the same animals. Then, the "Zeiss is worse"? Hum, perharps if you guys are sticking to the strict 1.4 comparison for extreme lowlight. But the ZF 50/2 is another story -IMO the best out there in F-mount, by relatively far.



Finally: the 58 delivers stunning results in capable hands, provided one knows and masters its -relatively speaking- flaws. Not exactly a studio workhorse, but one of the best tool for street. OTOH the 85 1.4 (called the "cream machine" by some recognized phtographers) performance is in turn very dependant on shooting conditions. This is a very well documented lens on the internet, it's easy to find less-than-stellar examples... even a majority. But it's still a superb portrait lens if it fits one's shooting style, and for one who made the effort to understand its best use. Like pretty much every lens.


Oh, and... now that the truly usable ISO in recent Nikon bodies goes through the roof, some of us can live with 2.8 max aperture in a majority of cases, then the Micro 60 2.8G is maybe the best out there. A totally underrated lens. And this goes for the 105VR, even better... if you can "move back a bit" (@Mark, above), of course


FWIW and since we're in subjective territory, here's my personal ranking in the F-mount 50to60mm category:

- ZF 50/2M ** Noktor 58/1.2 (street, lowlight B&W with an analog touch)
- Nikon Mikro 60/2.8G
- Tamron 17-50mm @ 50 (for street, and only when in Jorgen's hands )
- Nikon AFS 50/1.4G or Sigma 50/1.4 or ZF 50 1.4 (depending on one's shooting style and expectations -for studio portraits and product close-ups i'd keep the Nikon without hesitation)
- Nikon 50/1.2 AIS
- Nikon AFS 50/1.4D

Well, something like that. Again, a very subjective matter.

In the end, i could live with all of the above. Would just try and learn its ropes, and get the best out of it

You are correct regarding the zeiss 50/2 . I have this lens for my Nikon kit but rarely use it . The OF areas are exceptionally smooth and coupled with the great contrast and sharpness ....the IN FOCUS subject stands out. I don t think you would call this bokeh but with both the 100 and 5o ZF makro lenses ...the transition from sharp to OF is abrupt . For some subjects this is fine but for others its not. I don t find either of these lenses people pleasing .

I don t mean to imply that any of the above lenses aren t excellent . They just have strengths and weaknesses and subjective evaluations are always factored by personal preferences.

Not implying a right or wrong answer here just putting in point of view. :deadhorse:

 

[Steen]

(...)
we need the Nikon version of the canon 50 1.2L with AF.

+10 ... and that goes for the autofocus 85mm as well :thumbup:

Roger, actually I think that you have by this said the only thing that really matters here

Nikon, listen to Roger. For your own good :angel: and, admittedly, also a tad for ours.


P.S. Panda, gorgeous portraits with the noct-nikkor :thumbup:

 

[Corlan F.]

You are correct regarding the zeiss 50/2 . I have this lens for my Nikon kit but rarely use it . The OF areas are exceptionally smooth and coupled with the great contrast and sharpness ....the IN FOCUS subject stands out. I don t think you would call this bokeh but with both the 100 and 5o ZF makro lenses ...the transition from sharp to OF is abrupt . For some subjects this is fine but for others its not. I don t find either of these lenses people pleasing .

I don t mean to imply that any of the above lenses aren t excellent . They just have strengths and weaknesses and subjective evaluations are always factored by personal preferences.

Not implying a right or wrong answer here just putting in point of view. :deadhorse:

Sure Roger. We're here to exchange POVs, and everyone's mileage, approach and tastes vary, that's the beauty of it


Just one thing: do you call the following "an abrupt transition from sharp to OF"? (this question not intended to be challenging, just a matter of "frame of reference" as you put it earlier)

(just quick, random picks from my GetDpi gallery -from D700 mainly, and two with the D3X, all ZF 50/2M)

 

[Corlan F.]

Oh, and Panda, i agree with Steve. Gorgeous portraits above, whatever the bokeh... :thumbup:

 

[glenerrolrd]

Corlan

You images by the way are stunning but they demonstrate my point. The infocus area is incredibly sharp. Just shy of brittle ...but fine for the subject and your composition. the transition is quick ..the OTF areas are really soft even a few inches behind the subject.

I saw this when I was photographing parrots .....I had no latitude on the exact focus point and created some distracting OTF in front of the subject as well. The Canon 50L isn t this sharp and contrasty in the zone of focus and the roll off is smoother.

But as I think we agreed you learn to work with the character of the lens(and whats best depends on what you shoot and how you do it).

My database of images is off line ..I should be illustrating my comments.

Panda

Great use of a fast lens. I have some excellent comparisons of similar lighting with my Noctilux .95 . I have much work to do. Plus you are using the old trick of having a pretty girl in the shot to distract us from our careful examination of your image. LOL

Roger

 

[Corlan F.]

Roger- as you've surmised, i was in no way making of point with the images but simply trying to fine tune our mutual understanding -what's best than examples?. Thanks for the comments, it surely helps in this regard.

Looking forward to seeing some of your examples to illustrate further.


P.S. good point about the pretty girl

 

[Woody Campbell]

Well based on the input from this thread I decided to give the Sigma a try. It just arrived; I shot some stuff close at hand. I'm going to a book party and dinner tonight that will give me a chance to try it under live fire conditions. Based on two dozen frames or so it seems to be a move in the right direction from the 1.4G, but I have too little experience with it yet to really tell. It seems to focus a bit more confidently than the 1.4G (but this may be an illusion) - I've been shooting the 1.4G at f2.0 to provide a little headroom on focus; I'll try the Sigma at 1.4 tonight. Here's a sample of the close at hand stuff (sorry for the flower but at least its peony and it's not a cat) at f1.4. I'll post more tomorrow.

 

[Woody Campbell]

Woody, when I shot Nikon I went through every F mount AF 50 that you could put on the camera and never solved the problem to my liking. The Siggy 50/1.4 wasn't bad, but it did strange things to the specular highlights at near range, and the AF was jinky ... I went through 3 different Siggy 50s before giving up.

The Nikon 50/1.4 AFS was a bit of a disappointment ... AF wasn't much faster than the previous 50/1.4 despite being AFS :wtf: ... and Nikon dissapointed by NOT giving it Nano Crystal Coating. :wtf::wtf:

BTW, if you don't like the Bokeh of your Nikon 50/1.4D, you'd despise the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 at those same near background ranges.

The Canon AF 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 spoils it for everyone else ... great OOF rendering and superb flair suppression in lower ambient with specular areas. Not only that, the front OOF areas are also nicer than most others. I used those lenses coupled with a STE-2 transmitter to provide AF assist in really low ambient which speeded up the AF considerably.

My suggestion would be to move up to the Nikon 85/1.4 or 100/2 DC while moving back a bit ... and leave it at that.

The only 50 mm I use these days is the Noctilux 50/0.95. I have a Sony 50/1.4 which isn't all bad, but I never use it.

(attached: Canon 85/1.2)

Lovely image. I've owned both the new and old Canon 85 f1.2 (did I mention that I'm a gear slut) - it's a sufficient reason to own a Canon. My next stop will be the Nikon 85 1.4 hoping for something similar (or perhaps something similar that focuses a bit faster).

 

[jbcrane]

Interesting POV exchanged here.
...And this goes for the 105VR, even better... if you can "move back a bit"

I'm a little late to this party but it's a subject I'm following keenly. The transition & contrast between the sharpest and softest portions of the image is one of my favorite characteristics. I'll second the above; I'm especially fond of the 105VR's bokeh (this is at ƒ5). I've never seen a smoother, creamier bokeh from any lens on any camera. Thanks to all for the sharing of knowledge here.

 

[Woody Campbell]

From last night. One of these will end up on my blog. All D700 + Sigma 50mm 1.4. All shot at f1.4 and 1/100. Various IS0s - 6400 - 25600.

Accounting for focusing speed and accuracy, center sharpness, bokeh and flexibility, and overall robust performance in low light, this combination is working very well for me. Technical keeper percentage is around 70%.

 

[otumay]

I liked all of them, Woody!